Obama's gonna win the Dem nomination
Saw the last part of Barack Hussein Obama's address in Houston last night. This guy is a scary good speaker. I'm still trying to decide whether this guy is the most dangerous major political figure to appear on the scene in my living memory — or someone who might do some good.
That is, on one hand, he seems to be wedding the best instincts of mankind to a left-liberal statism that may do untold damage and take decades to reverse. In many ways, our country is still trying to undo the damage caused by 20 years of severe government mismanagement from 1960-80. The Reagan Revolution is unfinished and we've got a ways to go. That's the direction I think our country needs to go — toward getting the government off the backs of the American people.
On the other hand, I dunno. Obama is not a left-liberal Huey Long. At least, not yet.
The so-called "Obama" bubble will not burst soon. The guy is too good. There are not obvious chinks in his armor. Hubert Humphrey was a nice man and skillful politician, but had trouble rallying people. George McGovern was one of the most decent people ever to run for office, but deeply naive. Jimmy Carter was too earnest and naive. Gary Hart tried this same message as Obama, but he had a problem with women. Walter Mondale was a nice guy, but lacked charisma. Mike Dukakis was short, weird-looking and a boring technocrat. Bill Clinton lacked self-control. Al Gore had self-control, but couldn't make up his mind if he were a left-liberal or a Clinton New Democrat. John Kerry was obviously deeply narcissistic and one of those self-aggrandizing shits that you can't stand.
In other words, each of these candidates had the seeds of his own destruction obvious for all to see. On the GOP side, Nixon was joyless about his success and hid an angry streak. Ford seemed happy to be president, or not. Bush the Elder never seemed comfortable as heir to the Reagan Revolution, didn't really have a program, and spoke in managled syntax. Dole was a nice guy with a nasty streak. George W. Bush has his heart in the right place, but is the poorest communicator we've had as president in my memory — mostly because his answers usually sound like what he thinks he should say.
But Obama is none of these things. The man knows who he is. When he speaks, he speaks as if this is what he believes. He is charismatic and likeable. He's intelligent and appears reasonable. He doesn't seem to be a dog at heart, like Hart and Clinton. While he's clearly ambitious, he doesn't come across as someone seeking his own glory, like John Kerry.
His weakness is not in his leadership skills or in his personal character (at least, none have appeared at this time). His weakness is in the direction he wants to lead the country. Leaders need more than communication skills, character, integrity and effectiveness. Leaders are the people who set the direction — "we're going over there" and can persuade others to go that way, too. Obama is a guy, it seems at this time, who is skillful telling us to go in the wrong direction.
Not that he's wrong about everything. Remember — people are usually united about the questions. It's the answers that divide them. What is the good life? What's a fair society? How shall we treat the poor? How best to improve conditions for our people? How do we create a better nation?
The answers to these questions divide us, mostly because the answers require trade-offs. Shall we have equality of opportunity? Yes, of course, right? Ah, but what do we do when that leads to inequality of results? What is the role of the state, where can it really help and what are its limitations, in achieving a goal of a better nation?
Obama's answers, so far, seem out of whack. He talks about "shutting off the television" so kids can study. Great applause line. Um, exactly what does he mean by that? Does he mean to use moral suasion as president to encourage people to act in certain ways? Fine. That's actually conservative. But does he intend to, um, use the power of the state to achieve his ends? That's left-liberal*.
Fortunately, we have separation of powers in this country.
******
* I use the term left-liberal as opposed to liberal because I think there's a huge difference between old-fashioned moderate democrats and the left. I have long suspected that the divide in this country is a mixture of people who hold very similar views but are divided along lines that boil down to self-identification. A little like the Blood and the Crips. They are divided by their adherence to colors, but not that much by their actual values, are they?
That is, there are a lot of Democrats and Republicans who identify strongly with each political party, but who, if you stood to the side and observed them, aren't really all that different in their views, particularly in their adherence to certain ways of problem-solving.
Left-liberals, though, truly do have a different set of values and operate from a different paradigm. Back to my Bloods and Crips metaphor. Imagine that one ground of Crips wanted not only to control city blocks in order to secure trafficking in vice, but to actually take over the entire city and reform it not for the benefit of themselves, but for the benefit of the people. That would be fundamentally different. Left-liberals are sorta like that. (Don't stretch that analogy too far. And I don't mean to gloss over the differences between people — I'm speaking very generally here.)
UPDATE: By the way, I really loved George McGovern and desperately wanted him to win in 1972. To this day, I have fond memories of his campaign. But I was eight at the time ... what's the Obamaniacs' excuse?
